+- Forums - Open Redstone Engineers (https://forum.openredstone.org)
+-- Forum: ORE General (https://forum.openredstone.org/forum-39.html)
+--- Forum: Build Discussion (https://forum.openredstone.org/forum-50.html)
+--- Thread: Unacceptable. (/thread-4028.html)
RE: Unacceptable. - PNWMan - 07-12-2014
While this seems interesting, I fail to see 2 differences. One is how would this protected area be different than school? It's basically a school on build, which some are even thinking about doing full scale. While build tends to be more mature than school, I don't think this alone is a valid reason to have "school on build."
The only real fix for this is to just focus on merging school with build if enough people agree, then actually continuing to do conventional trials, but discouraging (denying sounds harsh to a student) a trial if the (honestly, I think staff, but some might think...) members think they may not be mature or ready.***
The other thing I fail to see is, how does this speed up the trial process? Someone can go from joining ORE to member in as little as (likely) 30 minutes if they finish early and explain well, although the typical is probably 1 hour-1.25 hours. With this method, you mentioned that members must vote on if they should be in the server, and this just seems to take longer.
Quiet people might also be a small issue. You said that the community must vote on this instead of staff, which DOES make sense because the community of ORE is all of the members. But most members feel as though they are not an essential part of the governmental system, some don't even want to be. Adding this new this new standard to the member society might do absolutely nothing. Testificates who tend to be quiet may have to wait for days and be annoyed as to why nobody is doing anything. And that sucks, because quiet people seem to be the most mature and even skilled. So I do feel that the staff/moderator should do the trialing and accepting.
However, I do also see a few good things with this. I agree that maturity should also be a factor in the trial, AS WELL as redstone skill. It's important to show you can be part of the server by being respectful, not annoying, etc. and should be included with a trial. With the conventional 1 hour build trial, it is hard to judge that, but this new trial system gives these [Testificates] or whatever you call them the server experience, and all of us the ability to have them part of the server to see what they are like.
This also seems to be less intimidating*** to a student. Instead of a 1 hour trial where you build something and explain it, you get a plot and you build for a while and the community accepts you in.
***The process of accepting a trial based on maturity may still sound harsh. However, will this new process of having a separate world for Testificates be any less harsh? It won't, because it is still "harsh" to deny students membership based on maturity. Now, it will not be as intimidating, as intimidating implies being scared. Students might fear the trial more than this membership test run.
But matters of harsh/intimidation could also be of its own trial, to test their determination and will. If they give up or rage about being denied a trial (or in cut's case, membership to the server), do we really want them here? Of course not, so this seemingly negative factor could actually bring about a positive.***
I still suggest that we merge school with build (another discussion, not here) and accept trial applications when they are deemed mature AND when they have met the application requirements. I also feel that staff (and moderators) should take the main part in this, accepting and trialing students, while we leave members alone to do their own things. Members can take a role in this if they so wish by teaching students/testificates.
RE: Unacceptable. - scrounchtike - 07-12-2014
I agree with the most part with PNW, although i think merging school with build is a bad idea, this is for another topic.
I really feel like the current system of applications is quite unorganized. Like PNWMan said, shy people probably won't ask admins for application review. These people will probably leave the server and this is an issue, we are losing people because of our current application system. Now, with the moderator rank, i think it could be an idea to make application reviews more structured. For example, at 10 PM (idk which time) multiple moderators, in fact all the one connected, could go check apps on the forums. I personally think that just this could really help the structure of ORE.
Now, for what Cut said about getting Membership. I really think that having a world for "maturity test" is a great idea, but I don't think that members should decide about other testificates. Here are the reasons:
1. I don't think all the members are interested into ORE politics or into these type of mechanics. Most of us are here to redstone. So I think that only Mods or Staff should get the right to decide over a testificate.
2. If there is a lot of Members, ideas might be misunderstood. For example, maybe a testificate would be denied with Members and be accepted with a Staff. This doesn't really make sense. Plus, there might be confusion between the members: Someone saw him spam, but no one is sure if that is true.... All sort of things may happen that makes Members unreliable.
So, if like I said Mods and Staff are the only ones deciding over testificates, Cut's idea is a great way to improve ORE.
RE: Unacceptable. - jxu - 07-13-2014
I think that if we have a freebuild and a visitor builds something very exemplary and high-level, they should be able to skip the application/trial process.
RE: Unacceptable. - Nickster258 - 07-13-2014
Simple solution: New admins.
While admins are slowly falling away and not paying as much attention as they did at the start of ORE, they need to be replaced by newer admins, possibly elected ones. If a corporation has a president/CEO who is resigning, someone fills the space left by him. If an admin leaves, someone should fill the space left by that person.
I am currently in a situation where I have little extra time at the moment and when school starts back this fall I will be taking classes from two separate educational institutes while trying to maintain my summer job a couple of days of the week.
RE: Unacceptable. - jxu - 07-13-2014
(07-13-2014, 03:49 AM)Nickster258 Wrote: Simple solution: New admins.I agree - the current staff are reluctant to take away admin from inactive users, leading to an excess of staff.
While admins are slowly falling away and not paying as much attention as they did at the start of ORE, they need to be replaced by newer admins, possibly elected ones. If a corporation has a president/CEO who is resigning, someone fills the space left by him. If an admin leaves, someone should fill the space left by that person.
RE: Unacceptable. - PhysoniumI - 07-13-2014
How is it an excess of staff if most of the staff are never on? There isn't an imbalance, so there aren't TOO many, there aren't enough active ones.
RE: Unacceptable. - Guy1234567890 - 07-13-2014
Dcentrics
DJ8X
embizone
greatgamer34
JeremyG
Magazorb
newomaster
Ntwede
tyler569
This is the current list of staff for those of you who didn't know (you can just click on the 'forum team' link in the bottom right of the forum home page). My opinion is probably irrelevant due to my inactivity, but I feel I should say something.
First off, there isn't an excess of staff: 9 members of staff is certainly just about the right amount. Whether they are active or not is a different story...
Secondly, regarding the idea of a free build: We had a free build on school... what happened to it? Also, having the free build on build is probably not a good idea logistically because that would require that world guard be set up on build, whereas it should already be set up on school... (right?)
Also, adding the rank of moderator does not seem like a good idea to me for several reasons: Back when we had foremen and admins, there often was a blurring of the lines between the two ranks. One foreman who may be a capable server admin would be given permission on ssh and then the other foremen would begin to push for permissions beyond their rank. This eventually led to the consolidation of admin and foreman into staff.
If there is a problem in administration, those who are not fulfilling their roles should step down and be replaced, as it was intended...
RE: Unacceptable. - Chibill - 07-13-2014
Free build was disabled on school because when they expanded the world it did not work at the new areas and greif by visitors was happening.
RE: Unacceptable. - Nickster258 - 07-13-2014
I only count staff that are active. If they are inactive, I don't count them.
Also, I think it would be a great idea to combine school and build. Have one server hosting the same thing so not only teachers (who at times are not that smart) but also other members can have an input on things.
RE: Unacceptable. - jxu - 07-13-2014
(07-13-2014, 01:55 PM)Guy1234567890 Wrote: First off, there isn't an excess of staff: 9 members of staff is certainly just about the right amount. Whether they are active or not is a different story...I don't know if you've been on the server recently, but it's not like the good ol' days. There's certainly an excess considering the active people on our server. It's gotten to the point in which some members of our server have left (at least temporarily) from the inactivity (edevil, iceglade).
(07-13-2014, 01:55 PM)Guy1234567890 Wrote: Also, adding the rank of moderator does not seem like a good idea to me for several reasons: Back when we had foremen and admins, there often was a blurring of the lines between the two ranks. One foreman who may be a capable server admin would be given permission on ssh and then the other foremen would begin to push for permissions beyond their rank. This eventually led to the consolidation of admin and foreman into staff.That may have worked then but it's clear that the current system is falling apart. A noticeable amount of time the server only has 0-2 people on. The way to solve your issue would be to have clear guidelines on what admins and foremen have the permission to do or not do.